Karen, I agree with you ,OM would not be included in the term sheet, since it is not a gastrointestinal indication.So perhaps another term sheet with another pharma has an interest in Brilacidin.
I believe both term sheets are under the umbrella of the same global pharma. From the time B-OM final dat was available to the first term sheet and then setting up the EOP2 meeting, attending, and receiving what they believed to be a favorable outcome is very much still on point to be under the first term sheet. Planning and setting up the subsidiary (globally), the 1st EMA meeting and continuing to prepare for phase 3 B-OM.
And now, as we approach the final legs of submitting and then launching phase 3, the same big GLOBAL pharma has decided to embrace even more of the brilacidin franchise by including more indications. This is my guess.
So, to me, and actually several others I've read, believe it is not at all unusual to go this long, not only in preparing the next step for brilacidin OM phase 3 but also for the BP to remain anonymous under the CDA until they're ready to release the protocol and make final preps to launch the trial.
Just for notes...
I think some just don't have the patience, or tolerance, to believe things in this sector can take so long and if it doesn't fit their time line it must be falling apart or no longer valid.
What will be even more interesting is seeing where we go with Kevetrin. Will that be under the same BP as well?
From my sticky post, though I may make this one my new one. In fact will. I think things are about to get very exciting.
It puzzling why there’s even a question about this. There was no mention of B-OM in the news release. Why would anyone think it’s included in the signed Term Sheet?